The Amphibious Forces of the us navy

НазваниеThe Amphibious Forces of the us navy
Дата конвертации31.01.2013
Размер0.94 Mb.
1   ...   6   7   8   9   10   11   12   13   ...   23

Acknowledgement: The Navy Department Library gratefully acknowledges the permission of Patrick H. Roth to post this paper on the Naval Historical Center website. All rights reserved by the author. Unlimited distribution is authorized as long as the author and the Naval Historical Center website are acknowledged.

[The opinions expressed in this publication are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of the Naval Historical Center]

23 November 2005

WASHINGTON DC 20374-5060

US Navy Sailors Operating Ashore as Artillerymen: Four Vignettes

Patrick H. Roth, Captain, US Navy (Retired)
Burke, Virginia

Related Resource: Sailors as Infantry in the US Navy


Defenders of Washington and Baltimore (1814)

Washington Defenses

Commodore Barney's Artillery at Bladensburg

Commodore Porter's Gun Battery at White House, Virginia

Commodore Perry's Battery at Indian Head, Maryland

Baltimore Defenses

"Rodgers Redoubt:" Defending the Direct Approach to Baltimore

The Flotillamen at Baltimore: Fort McHenry's Defenses

Siege Artillery for the Army, 1847 - War with Mexico

"The Best Boat Gun in the World" - the 12-pound Dahlgren Howitzer

The Biggest Guns on the Western Front, 1918 - World War I


The use of sailors as infantrymen ashore was common during the nineteenth century and the first four decades of the twentieth century. The Navy also provided artillery to support land operations. This paper illustrates the use of Navy artillery ashore. Vignettes discussed are: artillery support for the defense of Washington and Baltimore during the War of 1812; siege artillery support of General Winfield Scott’s Army besieging Veracruz during the War with Mexico; mid-nineteenth century development of the 12-pound Dahlgren boat howitzer; and, design, production, deployment, and employment of 14-inch railroad guns in France during World War One.

Defenders of Washington and Baltimore, 1814 - The War of 1812

Washington defenses

During the late summer of 1814, a British force under overall command of Vice Admiral Sir Alexander Cochrane threatened the nation’s capital. Cochrane was under orders to use both his naval force and embarked army troops under command of Major General Robert Ross to “conduct such operations as may be found best calculated for the advantage of His Majestys Service, and the annoyance of the Enemy.”1 After vacillating over potential targets, Cochrane landed General Ross’s division, supported by Royal Marines and British sailors, at Benedict, Maryland, on the Patuxent River.

Commodore Barney’s artillery at Bladensburg

The British landing sealed the fate of Commodore Joshua Barney’s Chesapeake Flotilla of gunboats which were trapped upriver from Benedict at Nottingham/Pigs Point. By prearranged direction of Navy Secretary William Jones, Barney destroyed his flotilla, and with his 400-450 flotillamen joined Brigadier General William H. Widner’s force defending Washington. Jones also attached approximately 100 marines to Barney’s force and provided the flotillamen with five pieces of artillery—three 12-pound and two light 18-pound long guns.2

Barney’s artillery (one 12-pounder) covered the withdraw of US forces from a position at “Long Old Fields,” eight miles east of Washington, where Widner’s forces encamped the night of 22 August. Barney’s flotillamen then pulled back into the city to the vicinity of the Washington Navy Yard and Marine Barracks at Eighth and I streets. At Widner’s direction, Barney placed his guns to cover the lower bridge across the Anacostia River. For a period, this was considered the most likely avenue of British approach.

Fresh information indicated a British approach via Bladensburg, and Widner’s regulars and militia set up defenses there the morning of 24 August. Barney and his Navy/Marine force arrived at Bladensburg somewhat later.3 By the time Barney’s men arrived “in a trot”, Widner’s initial front was collapsing. On arrival, the Commodore deployed his men and artillery in the center of a second line established by late arriving troops. He deployed his long 18-pounders in the center of the road to Washington and the 12-pounders to their right. The 18-pounders quickly engaged the advancing British, driving them clear of the road during three separate attacks.4 General Ross’ assaulting troops then shifted their focus to the right flank of the American line. At this point Barney’s flotillamen and marines, supported by the 12-pounders, attacked, pushing back the assaulting 85th Regiment of Foot. This temporary setback persuaded Ross to commit his Second Brigade to the flank assault. This fresh assault, coming at the same time as orders by General Widner to retreat, resulted in the collapse of the American second line of defense. Barney’s flotillamen found themselves flanked on both sides. Having resisted as long as possible, the flotilla spiked its guns and retreated.5

Commodore Porter’s Gun Battery at White House, Virginia

Navy Secretary Jones ordered all available navy personnel to assist in the defense of Washington. Among these were men from the frigates USS Guerriere (Commodore John Rogers) and USS Essex (Commodore David Porter). Guerriere was blockaded at Philadelphia and the Essex men were in Philadelphia for the courts-martial of Commodore Porter.6 They received orders to proceed to Washington on 19 August. Arriving too late to participate in the battle at Bladensburg, they were in time to meet a different threat.

Admiral Cochrane had ordered a separate British force under Captain James A. Gordon, Royal Navy to ascend the Potomac River as a feint. Gordon captured Fort Washington on the Maryland shore guarding Washington from the south and then occupied Alexandria, Virginia, on 29 August. By the time the Navy forces from Philadelphia arrived, Secretary Jones determined to destroy Gordon’s squadron when it returned down the river. He ordered Porter and his men to the White House on the Virginia side of the river and upon arriving there to construct a battery utilizing pre-positioned artillery supplied by the War Department.7

Porter, augmented by some volunteer Virginia militia and displaced Fort Washington garrison personnel, established a 13-gun battery (an eclectic collection of long three 18s, two 12-pounders, six 6-pounders, and two 4-pounders) on the river bluff.8 The battery engaged ships of Gordon’s British squadron from its establishment on 1 September through the 4th. As the British withdrew down the Potomac on 5 September, Porter’s battery engaged Gordon’s entire flotilla.9 Despite an energetic American effort, little damage was done to the British.

Commodore Perry’s Battery at Indian Head, Maryland

Commodore Oliver Hazard Perry, hero of Lake Erie and prospective commanding officer of USS Java, which was fitting out at Baltimore, was assigned to the Courts-martial board for Commodore Porter. When the board was suspended he came south with Rogers and Porter. He was ordered to establish a battery on the Maryland side of the Potomac. With sailors from USS Guerierre and USS Java, augmented by Major Peter’s Georgetown militia battery, he attempted to establish a battery on the Maryland shore of the Potomac opposite Porter’s battery at the White House. The location proved impractical and he moved his men to the cliffs at Indian Head, Maryland where he established a battery.

With a single exception, Perry’s guns (6-pounders) were of too small a caliber to “make much impression on the enemy.” The exception was a long 18-pounder that arrived “only 30 minutes before the firing began.” The 18-pounder quickly ran out of ammunition, as did several of the sixes. Perry’s battery hardly slowed the British down.10

Baltimore Defenses

Following British withdraw from Washington; they faced a decision as to their next move. Admiral Cochrane favored leaving the Chesapeake in order to engage in military operations in Rhode Island. His Army subordinate, General Ross, and his second in command Rear Admiral George Cockburn persuaded him to attack Baltimore instead. They landed 12 miles east of the city at North Point on 12 September. Maryland Militia Major General Samuel Smith had organized a defense. Part of this defense was a naval force “of about 1,000 Seamen and Marines…formed into a Brigade consisting of Two Regiments” under Commodore John Rogers.11

“Rodgers Redoubt”: defending the direct approach to Baltimore

Rogers’ sailors and marines from Philadelphia arrived in Baltimore on 25 August where they were informed of the American defeat at Bladensburg and British occupation of Washington. He immediately began to organize naval forces for the defense of the city.12 Subsequently, he and USS Guerriere and Essex crewmen were ordered to Washington to deal with Captain Gordon’s squadron returning on 8 September. When they arrived, Rogers deployed the bulk of his sailors and marines along Hamstead Hill, the highest promontory just east of the City. From this position, they covered both the Philadelphia and Sparrows Point Road. Artillery bastions manned by sailors stretched from the Philadelphia road to the Northwest Branch.

First Lieutenant Thomas Gamble of USS Guerriere commanded the northernmost Navy battery of seven guns commanding both roads with 100 men. Sailing Master F. De La Roche of USS Erie and Midshipman Robert Field from Guerriere, with twenty men and two guns, manned the next battery. Sailing Master James Ramage with 80 men from Guerriere commanded the next battery adjacent to the Sparrows Point Road. Midshipman William Salter with 12 seamen manned a one-gun battery to the right of the Ramage Battery. None of these batteries engaged the British, who behaved cautiously after an engagement with militia at North Point during which General Ross was killed, and did not assault the eastern landward approach to the city.13

The Flotillamen at Baltimore: Fort McHenry’s Defenses

Barney’s flotillamen came north to defend Baltimore along with the regular Army and militia. They were assigned duties manning artillery defense protecting the city from the South. Eighty flotilla sailors and one officer manned a battery of three long 18-pounders at the Lazaretto, a point of land across from Fort McHenry at the entrance to the Northwest Branch of the Patapsco River.14 An additional 50 flotilla seamen manned Fort McHenry’s water battery.

West of Fort McHenry, flotilla seamen manned two batteries that protected the south side of Baltimore. Sailing Master John Webster and fifty seamen manned Fort Babcock, a six-gun battery on the Patapsco Ferry Branch at Rigley’s Cove. Lieutenant H.L. Newcome of USS Guerriere commanded 80 seamen manning guns at Fort Covington, also on the Ferry Branch. Forts Babcock and Covington were active participants in the repulse of a British effort to flank Fort McHenry during the bombardment on the night 13/14 September. An assault force embarked in boats under command of Captain Charles Napier, Royal Navy, slipped by Fort McHenry unnoticed, but were sighted by flotilla men manning Forts Babcock and Covington. These forts immediately engaged the assault force and drove it off before troops could be landed. Meanwhile the Navy manned guns of the fort at the Lazaretto, and the water batteries actively engaged the bomb ships bombarding Fort McHenry.15

Siege Artillery for the Army, 1847 - The War with Mexico

During the late summer of 1846, President Polk and his advisors began to contemplate seizure of the Gulf coast port of Veracruz and possible advance to Mexico City should offers of a negotiated peace with Mexico be rejected. The Navy supported this proposal and in October, General Winfield Scott drew up an initial planning paper.16 A month later Polk selected Scott to command the expedition. A flurry of activity ensured, and early in March 1847 Scott’s US Army transport ships joined Commodore David Conner’s Home Squadron at the Antón Lizardo roadstead near Veracruz.

the us naval battery during the bombardment of vera cruz on 24 and 25 march 1847. the battery was composed of heavy guns from the us squadron under commodore matthew c. perry, and commanded by the officers opposite their guns. drawn on stone by pfau, painted by h.a. walke, lt., usn; n0. 8 in naval portfolio, scenes in the mexican war, published by sarony & major. naval historical center photographic branch #nh63785.

The US Naval Battery during the bombardment of Vera Cruz on 24 and 25 March 1847. The Battery was composed of heavy guns from the US Squadron under Commodore Matthew C. Perry, and commanded by the officers opposite their guns.

The Army’s three-division force landed 9 March in good order, but it was short of transportation and ordnance.17 Although Scott was short of siege artillery—he had only one fifth of what he believed necessary—he put off an immediate assault electing to besiege the city using artillery.18 Siege lines and artillery redoubts were ready by March 22.

The Home Squadron changed commanders on 21 March when Commodore Matthew Perry relieved Commodore David Conner. Following change of command, both men called on Scott who by then was ashore. During this meeting, the use of naval guns came up. Historian Samuel Eliot Morison suggests that Perry convinced Scott to accept a previously rejected offer by Conner to land heavy naval guns for use as siege artillery.19 Historian K. Jack Bauer suggests that they jointly discussed the earlier proposal “because it was clear the guns available to the Army were not heavy enough to batter down the Veracruz walls as rapidly as Scott desired.”20 This latter scenario suggests Scott now reconsidered the earlier offer of heavy naval artillery. Under either scenario, the guns were needed and they were accepted.

Perry personally visited each ship of the Squadron to announce that guns would be landed. An eyewitness, junior officer John H. Upshur, recalled “cheer after cheer was sent up in evidence of the enthusiasm the promise of a release from a life of inaction… In a moment everything was stir and bustle, and in an incredibly short piece of time, each vessel had landed her big gun, with double crew of officers and men.”21

Perry directed the Squadron to land three 32-pounders and three eight-inch shell guns together with crews. Two of the 32-pounders came from USS Potomac and the other from USS Raritan. USS Mississippi, USS Albany, and USS St. Mary’s provided a single shell gun each. Crews rotated daily. The guns were transferred ashore by boat on the 22nd, being moved on land by two wheeled trucks provided by the Army. Upwards of 200 soldiers and sailors pulled each truck from the landing spot to the site of the naval battery. Army Engineer Captain Robert E. Lee selected and supervised construction of the naval battery redoubt. The last gun was emplaced during the night of 23-24 March and at 10 a.m. on the morning of the 24th Captain Lee turned the site over to its first Navy commander, Captain John Aulick, commanding officer of USS Potomac.

The six heavy guns of the Navy Battery quickly engaged Mexican forts.22 Four sailors were killed and six wounded during the day by return fire. At 2:30 in the afternoon the battery ceased firing when it ran out of ammunition, having expended 50 rounds per gun. During the night of 24-25 March, Army engineers repaired the battery defenses damaged during the previous day and the Home Squadron landed additional ammunition. The engagement continued during the 25th at a furious pace.23 The battery received increasingly accurate counter battery fire. Two naval personnel were killed and three wounded. At mid-afternoon, the Mexican batteries ceased firing and the Navy Battery followed suit. When firing resumed later in the day, the battery again ran out of ammunition.

This would be the last action by the Battery. At 8.00 a.m. on the 26th, Mexican commander Brigadier General José Juan Landero offered to negotiate surrender. General Scott immediately ordered all firing to cease. The Battery expended about 1,000 shells and 800 round shot during the two day engagement. This accounted for about 45 percent of the total number, and one third of the weight, of shot and shell expended by American forces. The Navy heavy guns were particularly effective in reducing the coral composition walls of the Mexican fortifications.24

1   ...   6   7   8   9   10   11   12   13   ...   23


The Amphibious Forces of the us navy iconThe responsibility for the implementation, administration and management of the Navy sbir program is with the Office of Naval Research (onr). The Navy sbir

The Amphibious Forces of the us navy iconThe responsibility for the implementation, administration and management of the Navy sttr program is with the Office of Naval Research (onr). The Navy sttr

The Amphibious Forces of the us navy iconThe responsibility for the implementation, administration and management of the Navy sttr program is with the Office of Naval Research (onr). The Navy sttr

The Amphibious Forces of the us navy iconThe responsibility for the implementation, administration and management of the Navy sbir program is with the Office of Naval Research (onr). The Navy sbir

The Amphibious Forces of the us navy iconThe responsibility for the implementation, administration and management of the Navy sbir program is with the Office of Naval Research (onr). The Navy sbir

The Amphibious Forces of the us navy iconThe responsibility for the implementation, administration and management of the Navy sbir program is with the Office of Naval Research (onr). The Navy sbir

The Amphibious Forces of the us navy iconThe responsibility for the implementation, administration and management of the Navy sbir program is with the Office of Naval Research (onr). The Navy sbir

The Amphibious Forces of the us navy iconA 2 2: Aerodynamic Forces

The Amphibious Forces of the us navy iconThis report is mainly concern with the design of amphibious aircraft. Now a day many designers get involved in the design of aircraft in order to avoid the

The Amphibious Forces of the us navy iconHow do attractive forces differ from

Разместите кнопку на своём сайте:

База данных защищена авторским правом © 2012
обратиться к администрации
Главная страница